CVE-2017-5717 : Détail

CVE-2017-5717

7.8
/
Haute
0.07%V3
Local
2017-12-12
20h00 +00:00
2024-09-16
20h58 +00:00
Notifications pour un CVE
Restez informé de toutes modifications pour un CVE spécifique.
Gestion des notifications

Descriptions du CVE

Type Confusion in Content Protection HECI Service in Intel Graphics Driver allows unprivileged user to elevate privileges via local access.

Informations du CVE

Faiblesses connexes

CWE-ID Nom de la faiblesse Source
CWE-704 Incorrect Type Conversion or Cast
The product does not correctly convert an object, resource, or structure from one type to a different type.

Métriques

Métriques Score Gravité CVSS Vecteur Source
V3.0 7.8 HIGH CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Base: Exploitabilty Metrics

The Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the thing that is vulnerable, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable component.

Attack Vector

This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible.

Local

A vulnerability exploitable with Local access means that the vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack, and the attacker's path is via read/write/execute capabilities. In some cases, the attacker may be logged in locally in order to exploit the vulnerability, otherwise, she may rely on User Interaction to execute a malicious file.

Attack Complexity

This metric describes the conditions beyond the attacker's control that must exist in order to exploit the vulnerability.

Low

Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.

Privileges Required

This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess before successfully exploiting the vulnerability.

Low

The attacker is authorized with (i.e. requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.

User Interaction

This metric captures the requirement for a user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable component.

None

The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user.

Base: Scope Metrics

An important property captured by CVSS v3.0 is the ability for a vulnerability in one software component to impact resources beyond its means, or privileges.

Scope

Formally, Scope refers to the collection of privileges defined by a computing authority (e.g. an application, an operating system, or a sandbox environment) when granting access to computing resources (e.g. files, CPU, memory, etc). These privileges are assigned based on some method of identification and authorization. In some cases, the authorization may be simple or loosely controlled based upon predefined rules or standards. For example, in the case of Ethernet traffic sent to a network switch, the switch accepts traffic that arrives on its ports and is an authority that controls the traffic flow to other switch ports.

Unchanged

An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same authority. In this case the vulnerable component and the impacted component are the same.

Base: Impact Metrics

The Impact metrics refer to the properties of the impacted component.

Confidentiality Impact

This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information resources managed by a software component due to a successfully exploited vulnerability.

High

There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.

Integrity Impact

This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information.

High

There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Availability Impact

This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability.

High

There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Temporal Metrics

The Temporal metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability, the existence of any patches or workarounds, or the confidence that one has in the description of a vulnerability.

Environmental Metrics

[email protected]
V2 7.2 AV:L/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C [email protected]

EPSS

EPSS est un modèle de notation qui prédit la probabilité qu'une vulnérabilité soit exploitée.

Score EPSS

Le modèle EPSS produit un score de probabilité compris entre 0 et 1 (0 et 100 %). Plus la note est élevée, plus la probabilité qu'une vulnérabilité soit exploitée est grande.

Percentile EPSS

Le percentile est utilisé pour classer les CVE en fonction de leur score EPSS. Par exemple, une CVE dans le 95e percentile selon son score EPSS est plus susceptible d'être exploitée que 95 % des autres CVE. Ainsi, le percentile sert à comparer le score EPSS d'une CVE par rapport à d'autres CVE.

Informations sur l'Exploit

Exploit Database EDB-ID : 43373

Date de publication : 2017-12-18 23h00 +00:00
Auteur : Google Security Research
EDB Vérifié : Yes

Source: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project-zero/issues/detail?id=1358 Intel Content Protection HECI Service Type Confusion EoP Platform: Tested on Windows 10, service version 9.0.2.117 Class: Elevation of Privilege Summary: The Intel Content Protection HECI Service exposes a DCOM object to all users and most sandboxes (such as Edge LPAC and Chrome GPU). It has a type confusion vulnerability which can be used to elevate to SYSTEM privileges. Description: The Intel Content Protection HECI Service runs as LocalSystem and hosts a DCOM service. The main function is StartIo which takes an input variant and returns a variant. Based on what it’s trying to do I’d assume the input variant is supposed to be a byte array, however it contains a bug. The vulnerable code is roughly: HRESULT StartIo(VARIANT In, VARIANT* Out) { CComSafeArray<char> array; array::CopyFrom(In.parray); // Work with array ... } The issue here is that the In variant is used as a SAFEARRAY without checking that the VARIANT contains a SAFEARRAY. This leads to type confusion, for example a caller could pass VT_UI4 integer with any value they like and this code would interpret that integer as a pointer to a SAFEARRAY structure. This might seem to be only an arbitrary read issue, however the copy of the safe array can be made to execute arbitrary memory. If you point the type confused pointer at a block of memory which looks like a IUnknown array then when copying the array it will try and add a reference to each COM object in the array. This causes a VTable dispatch to AddRef which if carefully crafted should get arbitrary code execution. The call to CopyFrom does verify that the variant type is VT_UI1 (a byte array) however you can set some feature flags such as FADF_UNKNOWN which will force a call to IUnknown::AddRef on the elements of the array without changing the supposed variant type. Also you don’t need to guess the allocation address for the fake safearray as you can use a byte length BSTR which contains arbitrary data. The BSTR length field and the SAFEARRAY variant field lines up so as long as the lower 16 bits of the length is set to 17 (which is VT_UI1) it passes the checks and reads out the arbitrary contents from the allocated BSTR. The really bad thing about this service is not only is it intentionally designed to be accessible from even a heavily restrictive sandbox such as Edge LPAC but it runs with full LocalSystem privileges. While on Win10 CFG might make it harder to exploit, on Win7 you don’t have any such protection. Also the call is done inside an exception handler so even if the wrong address is chosen the service won’t crash (except for fast fail such as CFG). The following is an example crash when sending a fake safe array to the service (with just a dummy address of 0x18181818 as the IUnknown memory location). (1110.1188): Access violation - code c0000005 (first chance) First chance exceptions are reported before any exception handling. This exception may be expected and handled. eax=18181818 ebx=001e6290 ecx=18181818 edx=00209390 esi=11d41024 edi=18181818 eip=18181818 esp=0126efc4 ebp=0126efec iopl=0 nv up ei pl nz na pe nc cs=0023 ss=002b ds=002b es=002b fs=0053 gs=002b efl=00010206 18181818 1818 sbb byte ptr [eax],bl ds:002b:18181818=18 0:003> k # ChildEBP RetAddr WARNING: Frame IP not in any known module. Following frames may be wrong. 00 0126efc0 74f740fb 0x18181818 01 0126efec 74f73e42 OLEAUT32!SafeArrayCopyData+0x21b 02 0126f018 010335d3 OLEAUT32!SafeArrayCopy+0x182 03 0126f030 01034e1b IntelCpHeciSvc+0x135d3 04 0126f118 750326e0 IntelCpHeciSvc+0x14e1b 05 0126f144 74ff4fc2 RPCRT4!Invoke+0x34 06 0126f598 7525555e RPCRT4!NdrStubCall2+0x452 07 0126f5e4 74f70706 combase!CStdStubBuffer_Invoke+0xde [onecore\com\combase\ndr\ndrole\stub.cxx @ 1449] 08 0126f614 75300c48 OLEAUT32!CUnivStubWrapper::Invoke+0x136 09 (Inline) -------- combase!InvokeStubWithExceptionPolicyAndTracing::__l6::<lambda_1ba7c1521bf8e7d0ebd8f0b3c0295667>::operator()+0x4e [onecore\com\combase\dcomrem\channelb.cxx @ 1824] 0a 0126f668 75303621 combase!ObjectMethodExceptionHandlingAction<<lambda_1ba7c1521bf8e7d0ebd8f0b3c0295667> >+0xa8 [onecore\com\combase\dcomrem\excepn.hxx @ 91] 0b (Inline) -------- combase!InvokeStubWithExceptionPolicyAndTracing+0x8e [onecore\com\combase\dcomrem\channelb.cxx @ 1822] 0c 0126f78c 75307330 combase!DefaultStubInvoke+0x221 [onecore\com\combase\dcomrem\channelb.cxx @ 1891] 0d (Inline) -------- combase!SyncStubCall::Invoke+0x22 [onecore\com\combase\dcomrem\channelb.cxx @ 1948] 0e (Inline) -------- combase!SyncServerCall::StubInvoke+0x22 [onecore\com\combase\dcomrem\servercall.hpp @ 779] 0f (Inline) -------- combase!StubInvoke+0x287 [onecore\com\combase\dcomrem\channelb.cxx @ 2173] 10 0126f90c 7530009b combase!ServerCall::ContextInvoke+0x440 [onecore\com\combase\dcomrem\ctxchnl.cxx @ 1541] 11 (Inline) -------- combase!CServerChannel::ContextInvoke+0x669 [onecore\com\combase\dcomrem\ctxchnl.cxx @ 1437] 12 (Inline) -------- combase!DefaultInvokeInApartment+0x669 [onecore\com\combase\dcomrem\callctrl.cxx @ 3532] 13 (Inline) -------- combase!ClassicSTAInvokeInApartment+0x669 [onecore\com\combase\dcomrem\callctrl.cxx @ 3296] 14 0126f9ac 75302b39 combase!AppInvoke+0x8bb [onecore\com\combase\dcomrem\channelb.cxx @ 1604] 15 0126fb3c 7530ff85 combase!ComInvokeWithLockAndIPID+0x599 [onecore\com\combase\dcomrem\channelb.cxx @ 2722] 16 0126fb98 7531056b combase!ComInvoke+0x1c5 [onecore\com\combase\dcomrem\channelb.cxx @ 2242] 17 (Inline) -------- combase!ThreadDispatch+0x83 [onecore\com\combase\dcomrem\chancont.cxx @ 421] 18 0126fbd8 76b12b5b combase!ThreadWndProc+0x21b [onecore\com\combase\dcomrem\chancont.cxx @ 741] 19 0126fc04 76b050f3 USER32!_InternalCallWinProc+0x2b 1a 0126fcec 76b04a82 USER32!UserCallWinProcCheckWow+0x2d3 1b 0126fd60 76b04850 USER32!DispatchMessageWorker+0x222 1c 0126fd6c 010364e1 USER32!DispatchMessageW+0x10 1d 0126fda0 01037039 IntelCpHeciSvc+0x164e1 1e 0126fda8 0103e562 IntelCpHeciSvc+0x17039 1f 0126fde0 0103e5ec IntelCpHeciSvc+0x1e562 20 0126fdec 76928744 IntelCpHeciSvc+0x1e5ec 21 0126fe00 770a582d KERNEL32!BaseThreadInitThunk+0x24 22 0126fe48 770a57fd ntdll!__RtlUserThreadStart+0x2f 23 0126fe58 00000000 ntdll!_RtlUserThreadStart+0x1b Proof of Concept: I’ve provided a PoC as a VS project which you can run which will cause the service to access invalid memory. Note that you’ll need a debugger attached to IntelCpHeciSvc.exe as the RPC/DCOM dispatch will swallow the exception, it doesn’t crash the service. The Poc builds a fake SAFEARRAY structure and passes it as a BSTR to the service which gets interpreted as a pointer to a SAFEARRAY. Ultimately it tries to copy the array and will call AddRef on elements of the array. 1) Attach a debugger to IntelCpHeciSvc.exe 2) Compile and run the provided poc. Expected Result: Sending the fake SAFEARRAY should fail. Observed Result: The service tries to execute invalid memory at 0x18181818 (or at least crashes on an invalid memory location). Proof of Concept: https://gitlab.com/exploit-database/exploitdb-bin-sploits/-/raw/main/bin-sploits/43373.zip

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Intel>>Graphics_driver >> Version 15.33

Intel>>Graphics_driver >> Version 15.36

Intel>>Graphics_driver >> Version 15.40

Intel>>Graphics_driver >> Version 15.45

Intel>>Graphics_driver >> Version 15.46

Intel>>Graphics_driver >> Version 15.47

Intel>>Graphics_driver >> Version 15.49

Références

https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/43373/
Tags : exploit, x_refsource_EXPLOIT-DB